Three distinguished professors, Sara Zanivan (UK), Christian Frezza (Germany) and Arkaitz Carracedo (Spain) share their personal journeys and advice on becoming a Principal Investigator. They discuss the importance of leadership training, mentorship, and psychological safety, and the need for personalised approaches to career progression. Gain valuable insights into forging a successful path to independence in research.
Please note: this episode was recorded live at a scientific conference, and so the audio quality is not as good as other episodes.
Listen here, scroll down for the transcript and subscribe now via Spotify and Apple Podcasts so you’ll never miss an episode.
Our guests in this episode:
- Sara Zanivan, professor at the University of Glasgow and senior research investigator at Cancer Research UK, Beatson Institute.
- Christian Frezza, the Alexander Von Humboldt professor of metabolomics in aging at the colon cluster of excellence of cell stress response in aging associated disease, short CECAD, at the University of Cologne in Germany.
- Arkaitz Carracedo, Ikerbasque research professor at the proteomics unit and group leader at the Center for Cooperative Research in Biosciences in Spain.
The Cancer Researcher Podcast is hosted by the EACR Scientific Officer, Dr. Alexandra Boitor, who says, “I can well remember from my PhD and postdoc days how overwhelming it can feel at times to be surrounded by senior scientists and prominent figures in your research field, and in those moments, one cannot help but wonder how does the student become the master…”
Let’s find out together!
Episode transcript
Alexandra: Hello everyone and thank you so much for joining me this evening. Can you please tell us a little bit about your current team? In a nutshell, what is your team leader approach all about?
Sara: At the moment, I have 13 positions in my lab and it’s a very interdisciplinary lab because I have a research group, but I’m also head of an advanced technology proteomic facility. Which means that I have biologists, a clinical fellow, a bioinformatician, and mass spectrometry proteomics experts. And I think they are working very well all together. So, there is a technical group that is developing technology for my own research, but also for the entire institute. And then there is my group. This was a bit challenging in the beginning in terms of time, so I try to split how often I interact with the different teams.
The other important thing for me is to always have some one-to-one time. To be able to really have a discussion with everybody in the group. This is very important to me because it allows me to really understand how each person is, and then try to lead them in the most appropriate way.
Arkaitz: I think that, as Sara said, it’s very important to personalise management, and scientists are not managers by default. Something to consider is that in science we can lack training on human resources and leadership. And I think that this is a limitation that we need to address. For example, one important aspect that we try to implement in the lab and in the institute is that people are trained on leadership from the get-go, as PhD students and as postdocs. This helps mentor-mentee relationships. I think that how we teach to lead or how we learn to lead makes a difference on the science that we do.
Alexandra: So would you say that you managed to develop leadership skills beginning from your PhD and your postdoc, or is that something that you learned on your own later on?
Arkaitz: I did not, but I think that we should! I think that it should accompany the whole training process. We shouldn’t be trained as experimentalists and then all of a sudden one day become group leaders and manage people, but rather understand what are the guidelines to leadership, from healthy supervision to communication. In the lab, we have some dedicated meetings about mentorship, to meet with people that are supervising other people, so we can discuss the problems, the limitations, the opportunities, the process and experience. This helps us all find new strategies to create a healthy environment and better trainees.
Christian: Following on from what Arkaitz said, I think it’s very often assumed that when you move from your postdoc to your independent career, that somehow you will figure out how to live your life. At least, nobody told me that you will need to lead a team and you need to know how! But I think it is absolutely vital to make sure that we receive training about that, because managing people is probably the most unexpected and toughest parts of a scientist’s job when leading a lab. Arkaitz, you are doing something remarkable, but I think it should be done by universities at the get-go. You need leadership skills in every career. If you are a PhD, you will need to develop some leadership for when you need to either manage or talk to others. It’s not only when you’re on your own and independent.
Alexandra: Correct me if I got the wrong idea, but Arkaitz, were you suggesting that mentorship schemes could help in this process of developing leadership skills?
Arkaitz: Yes, I think it’s instrumental that not only we get a guideline, as Christian said, it shouldn’t be trial and error because for a person that is not trained, those roles might dictate the future of their career and of their lab. For example, one of the first things that I emphasise when someone comes to me to discuss starting a lab, is you need to think about what are the values that you want to establish in the lab? And “values” are not about the experiments or the research. They’re about what do you want people to think about when they join? What do you want people to preserve? What are they joining? What is your strategy? And this is a training process. When they come as experimentalists, you mentor them and you start the leadership process with them to do a given project.
Alexandra: And you mentioned that you believe that everyone should have some core values, not necessarily research-related. Would you be willing to share with us what are the core values in your lab?
Arkaitz: To me, the first core value has to be the question. Research has to be driven by the question, and people need to think that if the question is relevant, this is a matter of team effort. We are a small society in the lab. The larger the lab is, the more complex it becomes. So, we need to consider that we are here to answer the research question, and for that we need two components: creativity and motivation. And this is not only scientific; this is something that is nurtured through the environment of the lab. So respect, collegialism, help, and sometimes putting your priorities aside to help the person beside you is what make a lab work.
Alexandra: Is there anything that you as a supervisor can do to help someone feel more motivated when your students or your postdocs, for instance, have a low moment?
Christian: First of all, we need to acknowledge that we have low moments. People don’t think about it. They simply go on and procrastinate rather than face the issue, and this brings me to a value that we also share in the lab, which is the concept of psychological safety. This is basically the ability and the possibility of each of the lab members to speak up when they have a problem, whether scientific or not. As for motivation, it’s impossible to have someone that is constantly motivated, and I speak from direct experience. Clear long-term goals are essential. It’s not just about a project that you achieve, or a specific paper published. The long-term motivation can be more powerful, like the pursuit of knowledge. If you keep the knowledge and the passion that you have for a specific topic in mind, then even if you hit hurdles along the line, you will be able to get through them. It’s normal, especially for PhD students. There is always a second year crisis… Most of the time. You will go through this; it’s inevitable. So as long as we know that this is a process, and you have a clear vision at the end, I think that’s a really good strategy to keep people motivated. I don’t know if it works, but at least it’s a way.
Alexandra: I agree that it’s good to have a vision, and I would argue that the vision of many early career researchers is to become a team leader someday as an independent researcher. How did you know you were ready to make that step?
Christian: I don’t think you ever know when you’re ready until you are. Of course there are technical issues that help signify when you are ready and when you are not, for example papers, your CV, etc. Then there is the leadership part and the other component of the job that we just discussed. When you are in a postdoc and you have published one or two very good papers, then you know that you can apply for independent funding. But you also need to want to be independent. Very often it is assumed that if you are a great scientist and you publish well, then you must want to be a PI. That is the other question. You never know when you’re ready until the trial because the job that you’re going to embark on is completely different from what you are doing as a postdoc. And you never know what is going to happen until you do it. Until you try, you never know… At least, this was my experience.
Sara: I knew that I wanted to become independent, so that was clear, but I remember that I didn’t feel ready yet. But then there was this opportunity for a group leader position that really ticked all the boxes. It was to do technology development working in cancer research, and I didn’t want to miss the opportunity. I really wanted to apply, but then I felt unsure as to whether I was ready. And then one day, another postdoc in the lab told me, “I think that’s the position for you”, and that gave me the courage to apply. So I think you don’t usually feel ready, and what is important is to have people around you that can support you when you want to make that step.
Arkaitz: I think that in our career, the more I share the experience with other people, the more prevalent is imposter syndrome. I was completely convinced that I would fail miserably when I was offered the position. I took it because there was the opportunity, because I thought that I had to, but the moment I committed and I knew that in a year’s time I would become a PI, everything that happened to me thereafter was interpreted as “You see, you’re not ready!” When I started the lab, a shipment didn’t go through, the samples were lost, etc. I saw these things as a sign that I would fail.
I think that we need honest support that tells us that this is not easy, and is not the job for everyone. Being a PI is a completely different job from being a scientist at the bench. And in the lab we often talk about career path, asking “what do you want to do?” because maybe not all doors are open, but it’s very important that you know which doors you want to knock on. And then we can build a strategy to get you there.
So either you become a PI, you go to industry, you teach… but then what happens with all these people that are highly trained, that lead people well, that align with the lab’s core values, but don’t want to be a PI? The thing is, we don’t generate stable positions for them. It’s a problem with science, this lack of stability, and this goes with conciliation, with family, with career breaks with this risk of missing the train. If I don’t keep up, I will miss the train.
Alexandra: So you’re actually saying something that I know for sure was on my mind when I was a postdoc, and I’m sure it’s on the mind of many young career researchers. And I think at the end of the day, it comes down to how do you balance your personal life, be it family, hobbies or anything else with your work life without fearing that it would impede your career progression?
Arkaitz: I think there is no easy answer. To me, it’s a limit that you must decide on for yourself, because our job and our success is directly proportional to the hours that we invest. You do 10 more experiments, then you get more data, which can equal more success. If we don’t favour that, there has to be a limit. We cannot have this idea that I’m competing with everybody so I need to go faster, but rather that I’m going be more robust. I think Christian alluded to it, psychological safety, saying, “okay, you do the best you can, and then do other things.” Go home and have balance. We need some safety and for that we need to push that they are working hours. Our work is flexible and this doesn’t mean that you need to work more. It means that sometimes you need to push and sometimes you can pull and you can have the benefits of our flexibility, of our job, of traveling, of going through all the tasks that we need to achieve.
Christian: I think you mentioned the flexibility, uh, is often seen as a perk of our job, but actually I think it can backfire tremendously because being flexible doesn’t mean that you can work as little as you want, but that you can work, you know, as many hours as you want and it’s never less, but it’s always more than what you can actually do. I think you need to be very firm in establishing boundaries. For example, before my PhD I worked in a company, so we had very strict hours. I started my PhD with that mentality, having a very fixed schedule every day where I started at 9, finished at five or six, and got the train home.
I suggest everyone in the lab does this because it gives you time to do things at home. If you organise things well, you can be efficient and successful. Flexibility can very often lead to the problem of inefficiency, as we think that because I can work later, I will do it later. This can lead to you having no boundaries between your life and the job. I encourage people to have very clear rules.
Arkaitz: I would say that 30% of the people in my lab have kids, and this means that there are times when we have to go. We really need that boundary to say, “okay, this is enough”. I need to close and I need to disconnect. You may need to come in later or leave earlier. What I mean by flexibility is that you use your time, you are the master of your time, and you are also responsible for your work. Life cannot adapt for our job, but I think this job can give us opportunities and experiences that are unique. For example, when people go abroad for a postdoc, they don’t just think about which lab they will go to; they also think about which city they’d like to live in for a period of time. Make it personal so that it’s always worth it. If things are more difficult, you have this balance that I’m here and will live in this unique experience. And when things are going well, you are boosted and your motivation goes through the roof and this helps your work too.
Sara: What made the difference to me is that I started thinking about what I would consider a successful life for myself. And at that point I started separating what I find successful for my job and what I think is successful for my life. And then I tried to find common values in my job and in my life. I think that was extremely helpful to start dedicating time for myself. For example I don’t have kids, so I was, of course, more into my work. Connections are important to me, so I had a lot of connections in the workplace, colleagues, etc. But then I started really working to have connections outside that were meaningful to me. And that for me was something very helpful.
Alexandra: We often talk about how important it is to have connections and collaborations in academia, but we tend to forget how important it is to have them in our private lives as well. It brings me to one of the questions I wanted to ask all three of you, as I’ve noticed there are some differences in your careers in terms of where you decided to start your own labs. What do you think is the most important thing when you decide where to start your own lab?
Arkaitz: I think that you need to make it personal. There are people that see living abroad as an opportunity. In my case, I went to the States with my wife, and we had a clear idea that going back was a priority, so we would have a better balance if we were close to home. What I try to convey to the people in the lab is to take one decision at a time. So you are deciding where to go for a postdoc. Don’t decide if you’re going to come back afterwards. Decide when you’re there, because otherwise any decision becomes unbearable. I always give the same example of when I went to the States. I furnished my home in one day, in two hours, and it was perfectly fine. When I came back to Bilbao, it took me one year to buy a sofa because it would be the permanent decision. And this happens with deciding for a postdoc or going for a secondment or staff lab. You think that that decision is irreversible and irreversibility kills motivation, kills creativity and limits the decision maker. We need to do one decision at the time and also be aware that maybe it’s not the best decision afterwards and we can go back. We need to commit, but we need to be aware that perhaps this is not the best for us. If it doesn’t work, do something else. Think about what other thing you would like to do if this doesn’t work? This relieves some pressure.
Sara: It’s a very personal decision. In my team, I always respect the decision of the person from a personal point of view. For me it was not very important where to go in terms of location, but it was more important the institute where I wanted to go. And for me it was more important to know that it was a collaborative environment that I could feel while working.
Alexandra: How about you Christian? If I remember correctly, you’ve moved your lab fairly recently, haven’t you?
Christian: Yes, a year ago. I agree with Sarah when you move. For me, the decision was based mostly on the people. When I started the lab in Cambridge, it was about the director, the person who recruited me and the few PIs that were there, then now it became an even bigger decision. It’s about the entire faculty and the microenvironment. I discourage people to go to a place just because X Lab is successful. I don’t think that works because if you’re not into the work, and if you don’t feel part of a community of the lab, your time can be very difficult. I always say, meet the people. You need to think that you will live with these people every day for a few years. There’s the personal thing about going back home, like Arkaitz did, or staying abroad, but I think for me, once I moved from Italy, it was almost irreversible.
Arkaitz: Perhaps the common aspect is the introspection. So what are your priorities, personal, professional, work, environment, and working dynamics? And then take the decision, because I think that sometimes we don’t do this introspection very often, so we go with the flow.
Alexandra: I think the take-home message from our conversation today would be that this decision of starting or continuing your career and starting your own lab is very personal. I think we tend to forget that we can change things and tend to do things based on what we’ve seen others do. It’s important to think about what you want and where you want to be 10 years from now. Did I get that right?
Christian: Yes! This is all an example of incessantly querying where you are. When I was a postdoc, everybody was asking, “so do you want to be a PI?” This is the question I think many of us got at some point, and I think it gives us this kind of pressure that Arkaitz was mentioning that it seems like our career has only one clear direction: becoming a PI. Many people told me they wanted to be a PI without knowing what it means. So I think this is an error, and it can get you in big trouble because if you commit to do something that you don’t have a clear idea what it is about, you might restrict a lot of other options. And so you might embark on something where you need to be a leader of people, but you don’t have the skills. And so you will find yourself in a position that you don’t find comfortable with later on. I think that’s something I want everyone to be clear on. But do what is best at each stage, and don’t think too soon about what you want to do in 10 years.
Arkaitz: I would like to make two points, and one is that it’s very important to talk about expectations, so to devote some time with each person about their own career path. Instead of asking the question, “do you want to be a PI?” instead asking, “what do you want to do?” So not closing the question. And doing this every step of the way. So the first thing is the expectations. Mine as a PI, yours as a person in my lab, and we do this at least once a year. It is not science oriented, but training oriented and at the level of personal work in the lab that will keep you motivated. What things can I improve as a group leader, or the team dynamics.
The second thing is that making it personal or making your own decision doesn’t mean that you are alone. I think that as group leaders, as long as we have a voice, we can change the system. We need to make the system more robust. So training at every level, alternative career paths, generating positions that are stable and compatible with personal life, with family, and still remaining in science without being a PI. We need to push the institutes to generate these positions and to generate the training, to make researchers who own their decisions, because they’re better informed and they see the options that exist. It is essential for the structure of the scientific system. So we have our part of responsibility to do, to push the system to adapt to the needs, and then so that people make informed decisions about what they want to do one at a time, as Christian said. Not 10 years from now, not this classical question, what do you want to do 10 years from now? No.
Christian: Yeah, absolutely.
Arkaitz: What is your next step? Take it and then go to the next. Don’t jump stairs cause you’ll probably fall.
Alexandra: Thank you very much for your answers. This is a very interesting conversation and I feel like it could go on forever, but I know you are all very busy, so I’m not going to keep you here with me for much longer! I have only one more question to close up, and that is reflecting on everything you have achieved in your career so far, what advice would you give to your younger self?
Sara: I have thought a lot about this, and I think that I would’ve looked more proactively to have good mentors and good promoters. I would’ve looked earlier on to be more supported in my decisions. More helped I think, evaluating opportunities, and progressing where I actually wanted to go more effectively.
Arkaitz: I would say that I still see my inner self as my younger self. I still feel the same weaknesses and fears as when I was a PhD student. So perhaps I would tell my younger self that things are going to happen, and it will be tough to keep a balance. They will be resolved sometimes by your contribution, or they will happen again. So be prepared and feel it as part of the process and not as a personal failure. I think there is personal insecurity and the sense of failure that happens when you join a lab and you don’t know anything, then you learn everything. You go to a postdoc and you don’t know anything again. You feel like you have no value. Then you start a lab and you don’t know anything again! So don’t abandon things, because this happens to everyone. And making it visible and supporting mental health is something that we need to push and push and really nurture because it’s essential to keep motivation and creativity.
Christian: This is a difficult question. I would tell myself to try having less control over things because things will pass. I’m still paranoid about whenever I receive an email or something, I feel the pressure, the urge to act immediately. For me personally that gives me a huge amount of pressure of all these deadline that arrive and that make the present feel awful. Whereas if you start thinking that, okay, things will arrive and then they will go, you will make it somehow.
Alexandra: Thank you very much for your answers and for agreeing to take part in our podcast. We really hope that you enjoyed listening to Sara, Christian and Arkaitz and their career advice inspired by their own experiences of finding themselves, both on the mentee and on the mentor side of the process. I would like to thank my guests again for being here today with me, and thank you for listening.
Enjoyed it? Subscribe now via Spotify and Apple Podcasts so you’ll never miss an episode of The Cancer Researcher Podcast.
